F-16.net

F-35 to replace A-10?

RE: a-10 & future

RonO, jr here, i agree with you 100% if we didn't make any errors than we would become stale. we have had some pretty exciting things come out of those hush hush places. best regards, jr1947

Re: a-10 & future

Posted: 04 Jun 2006, 01:05

by swanee

jr1947 wrote:hello swanee, jr here, i know i get somewhat skeptical at times, especially when it comes out that some government program just spent some rediciously large amount of $'s on whatever just to end up canning the project for whatever reasons. i know we need development programs on the books other wise we wouln't eventually see planes like the u-2 - stealth - b1 an so forth. now we are going into the future with this jsf prgram an who knows where that's going to take us. well gotta run, time for work. GOD BLESS U.S.A.i don't agree with all that goes on here but here is my home, an i love it!

I agree totally. The BFV comment was intended to produce some laughs; after all, it was an Air Force O-5 who got the truth about it out.

Every airplane is built for a purpose, and a lot of those that never go into production have done remarkably just for being living proof that they can fly.

Posted: 12 Jul 2006, 13:04

by DMWFFT

Its just that I am running out of air sick bags after reading stuff again and again about when CAS is mentioned the A-10 is mentioned as the tool. ( including the sound of trumpets and choir in the distance ).

Elp, you and I should go in together on a bulk order of airsick bags. Then I can use my half of the supply for every time I hear about how the F-16 can do every mission and can do it better than anyone.

Sorry Jack, but when the heavens part and Hogs comes down for CAS there is no trumpet and choir. This is all you hear…

The thank you email I got from 1Lt Boada, a few weeks after the sortie, never hinted at how scared he was that A-10s were filling his request. I guess he was just thankful that someone could get there, since the weather was too bad for helos and the enemy too close for bombs. Though, I’m sure the sound of fast movers circling overhead above the clouds and out of the fight would have been reassuring too.

Sad truth about real CAS is that if you do it long enough something bad is going to happen. But there is a big difference between hitting friendlies that the JTAC told you were enemy and hitting the wrong target entirely. The previously mentioned A-10 incidents involved guys on the ground, in the heat of the battle, getting confused and calling air in on friendly troops. In Desert Storm 70 percent of the Army vehicles hit were hit by Army fire. Since these same guys on the ground are the ones calling in the targets you can understand why CAS players are going to hit the wrong guys. That being said the pilots don’t always have to shoot when the JTAC tells them to. It is up to the pilots to use their SA to determine if each target can be safely hit. By not just blindly dropping a JDAM on whatever coordinates the JTAC sent me I prevented two frats. First on two Marines who had been declared hostile by their company commander and then on a village the JTAC didn’t even know was at the coordinates he passed me.

I wouldn’t throw around anecdotal evidence to support the slanderous statement that the A-10 community has a ‘bad history of frat’ and ‘didn’t learn the lessons from Desert Storm’. No community in the military is in the clear regarding frat. So if you have never been asked to pull the trigger, those of us who have will take none of your sh*t on the subject.

If you want a great read about JDAM, the wonder CAS weapon, look at ‘B-52 CAS’ in Combat Edge, July 06 (It’s the ACC safety rag.)

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Posted: 11 Jul 2018, 09:43

by Corsair1963

Honestly, I will be glad when this debate finally ends....

Nonetheless, the F-35 was never designed as a direct replacement for the A-10! When the Warthog finally retires the USAF will use whatever is available. (F-15E's, F-16C's, F-35A's, AC-130's, B-1's, B-2's, B-52's, Drones, etc. etc. etc.)

This is "NOTHING" new at all.......Which, is why this whole A-10 vs F-35 debate is one big WASTE OF TIME.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Posted: 11 Jul 2018, 11:17

by weasel1962

Its nice to know the F35 program doesn't know what they are talking about.

Three variants of the F-35 will replace the A-10 and F-16 for the U.S. Air Force, the F/A-18 for the U.S. Navy, the F/A-18 and AV-8B Harrier for the U.S. Marine Corps, and a variety of fighters for at least ten other countries.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Three variants of the F-35 will replace the A-10 and F-16 for the U.S. Air Force, the F/A-18 for the U.S. Navy, the F/A-18 and AV-8B Harrier for the U.S. Marine Corps, and a variety of fighters for at least ten other countries.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Posted: 12 Jul 2018, 01:45

by weasel1962

In desert storm, A-10s operated below 12k ft, some as low as 4-7k ft. 20 got hit out of the 65 aircraft casualties. After mostly low level hit, the coalition put a pause on low level ops and moved CAS to medium level altitudes. That was 1991. Post 1991, the development of 40k pods means medium altitude visual is much better than 1991. Since 1991, has low level AAA/SAM improved? Knowing all that, would the USAF then design a CAS aircraft to go low?

The F-35 is the direct replacement for the A-10. It was designed specifically to avoid the weakness of the A-10 in the CAS role. A squadron of A-10s was supposed to be replaced by a squadron of F-35s. That's as direct as one can get. That was also the plan from day 1 until Ayotte.

The A-10 is the best at what it does, no doubt. Those that argued for A-10's retention came with good intentions. The A-10 is like the 16inch guns of the battleship. No gun today is as good as the 16 inch, nor can any warship today (excepting the CV) has the same amount of armor protection nor can do the kind of shore bombardment that the battleship used to do. Does that mean the battleship should never have been retired or that the current warships aren't direct replacements?

Some people have been lulled by the fact that since 1991, the USAF hasn't been called to fight in any air ops contested environment. It doesn't mean that post 1991, that no other country has invested in IADS or air defence. All potential aggressors have, even North Korea. Forcing the USAF to keep the A-10 is just asking 20% of the force not to join a contested fight until the fight is almost over. Having said that, if there is any country that is rich enough to say that, it would be the US of A.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Posted: 12 Jul 2018, 01:50

by Corsair1963

weasel1962 wrote:In desert storm, A-10s operated below 12k ft, some as low as 4-7k ft. 20 got hit out of the 65 aircraft casualties. After mostly low level hit, the coalition put a pause on low level ops and moved CAS to medium level altitudes. That was 1991. Post 1991, the development of 40k pods means medium altitude visual is much better than 1991. Since 1991, has low level AAA/SAM improved? Knowing all that, would the USAF then design a CAS aircraft to go low?

The F-35 is the direct replacement for the A-10. It was designed specifically to avoid the weakness of the A-10 in the CAS role. A squadron of A-10s was supposed to be replaced by a squadron of F-35s. That's as direct as one can get. That was also the plan from day 1 until Ayotte.

The A-10 is the best at what it does, no doubt. Those that argued for A-10's retention came with good intentions. The A-10 is like the 16inch guns of the battleship. No gun today is as good as the 16 inch, nor can any warship today (excepting the CV) has the same amount of armor protection nor can do the kind of shore bombardment that the battleship used to do. Does that mean the battleship should never have been retired or that the current warships aren't direct replacements?

Some people have been lulled by the fact that since 1991, the USAF hasn't been called to fight in any air ops contested environment. It doesn't mean that post 1991, that no other country has invested in IADS or air defence. All potential aggressors have, even North Korea. Forcing the USAF to keep the A-10 is just asking 20% of the force not to join a contested fight until the fight is almost over. Having said that, if there is any country that is rich enough to say that, it would be the US of A.

The F-35 was never designed as a "direct" replacement for the A-10. It will just like many other platforms perform a number of A-10 roles when it retires.

As usual you're showing the rest of us. Who is the smartest of the bunch....

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Posted: 12 Jul 2018, 02:36

by weasel1962

Corsair1963 wrote:The F-35 was never designed as a "direct" replacement for the A-10. It will just like many other platforms perform a number of A-10 roles when it retires.

What role does the A-10 do that the F-35 can't? CAS, check. CSAR, check, FAC, check....hmmm but that's not direct enough.

The only role that the F-35 can do but doesn't want to do that the A-10 excels in (and is designed for) but strangely what some people want to see is the F-35 going low level at minimal speed popping up above the treeline and popping loads of gun lead/uranium into targets.

Re: F-35 to replace A-10?

Posted: 12 Jul 2018, 03:39

by Corsair1963

weasel1962 wrote:

Corsair1963 wrote:The F-35 was never designed as a "direct" replacement for the A-10. It will just like many other platforms perform a number of A-10 roles when it retires.

What role does the A-10 do that the F-35 can't? CAS, check. CSAR, check, FAC, check....hmmm but that's not direct enough.

The only role that the F-35 can do but doesn't want to do that the A-10 excels in (and is designed for) but strangely what some people want to see is the F-35 going low level at minimal speed popping up above the treeline and popping loads of gun lead/uranium into targets.

Your splitting hairs.....The A-10 will retire and the F-35 along with a very long list of other platforms will take over the role. In addition the F-35 "was" designed as a Multirole Strike Fighter from the start. So, hardly surprising that is can perform most A-10 Missions.

BTW The F-35A will replace a number of F-15C units in the coming decades. So, is it also a "direct" replacement for the "Air Superiority Eagle"???